D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

Good for us then that that isn't what the Theory of Evolution proposes.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church!

Well, except for the fact that the Church doesn't actually teach this. Oh, and also the fact that scripture doesn't really say this, either.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church does in fact teach this very thing (except that the earth's age is 7,000 years old not 10,000 years old.) And indeed this is derived from the calculation of the Book of Jubilees, which our Church considers to be canonical Scripture. So jckstraw72 is basically correct.

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

Good for us then that that isn't what the Theory of Evolution proposes.

There seem to be a lot of contradictory ideas out there. Fish, birds, first it's one thing they're 'sure' of, and then something else comes along, which becomes the next 'it had to be.' (shrugs) It's funny how people will claim to know something, but don't seem to make claims or admissions about what they don't know.

Everything about evolution isn't known, of course, but that doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming evidence for its truth. Just because they find a new thing that sheds light on it doesn't mean it cancels all the other ones out.

I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

Good for us then that that isn't what the Theory of Evolution proposes.

Then what does it propose?

Certainly not that chordates went from fish to terrestrial animals in a single generation.

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.

Okay, really? How old are you? This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith. Lord, have mercy.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

No, what is ridiculous is that there are those who actually believe this is what evolution theorizes. It does nothing of the sort. No fish ever crawled onto a beach and somehow formed legs. If this is what you think evolution teaches, then it's no wonder you reject it. What's disappointing is that you haven't educated yourself enough to understand something before rejecting it.

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.

Okay, really? How old are you? This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith. Lord, have mercy.

you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.

Okay, really? How old are you? This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith. Lord, have mercy.

you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

but thanks for the sarcasm. its really neat.

I would expect you avoid vain repetitions, and instead give me another new and different perspective of your same, unchanging, and old belief.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

D) The Omphalos hypothesisE) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall. F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.

I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say. D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense. D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems. Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God. Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old? D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.

God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....

Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?

different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.

Okay, really? How old are you? This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith. Lord, have mercy.

you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

but thanks for the sarcasm. its really neat.

I would expect you avoid vain repetitions, and instead give me another new and different perspective of your same, unchanging, and old belief.

I'm very worried that Rome accepts evolution as a possible explanation for Genesis 1 (and many if unfortunately not most priests are buying that Genesis 1 can be allegorized as evolution and it's all a "myth"). If you don't believe in Moses can you believe in Christ ? No of course not (John 5:45-47). I heard the Eastern Orthodox were starting to accept this evolution business and it's worrying me.

Why should what Rome does, worry you?

Because he's a Branch Theorist. Almost everyone of the East Syrian tradition is now.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Indeed it would appear that at the very least he includes the ACE, OOC, EOC, and RCC as branches of the Church.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

we have branches of the true Church, ACOE does not believe in some sort of ecclesial supremacy (ie: things like papal primacy, first among equals, one Bishop having power over another ruthlessly).

That is not the issue. The issue is that imagining the Church as the Body of Christ to include members who will not share the Body of Christ in Holy Communion with each other is nonsensical.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Russian, etc.) accept the doctrine of evolution in any form? Do any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches accept this doctrine? Just wanted to know.

There is no such thing as "the doctrine of evolution." There exists a phenomenon of biological evolution, which is defined as a change of the genetic makeup of populations over time. There also exists the theory of biological evolution, which states that the diversity of life forms on our planet exits because of the ongoing biological evolution. That's all. I teach biological disciplines at a university, so I would know.

One often overlooked fact here is that it is possible to acknowledge the current reality of biological evolution while denying that it was involved in God's Creation.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

My theory: Orthodox acceptance of evolution heresy (I see here, don't know if it's true overall for the OC) is an unfortunate side-effect of communist takeover and over-secularism for some 80 years which indoctrinated people into this. Time to undo this mess, reprimand all Bishops who don't believe Moses is telling the truth in Genesis 1 and that it's all a myth. There's still time to counter this heresy.

The problem is not whether Moses is telling the truth or not but whether he intended Genesis to be simply a literal, historical account. Often the Scriptures are not found written in this way. Why do you assume Genesis must be such?

Oh, maybe because of that dreadful Antiochian school of exegesis.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right?

Most likely we are a type of ape.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Btw, the Bible says God made our bodies out of mud, and several Church Fathers say that our entire person--not just soul and spirit, but body as well--were made in the image of God, or rather, the image of the image of God (ie. Jesus). After being called a mud man, being modeled after an ape isn't exactly shocking.

LOL. Nice.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Basil did not believe in Evolution (See his Hexaemeron) and Mar Ephrem either. You dare dispute the Doctors of the Church with "evolution"?

Quote

THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496

Therefore this council binding to orthodox (I am not sure) says that evolution is wrong because it says a mortal Ape was the first Adam subject to death.

Huh?

Where do you get the idea that the Theory of Evolution necessitates Adam being originally subject to death?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit. There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading. There is nothing to back that up empirically. It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.

the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery. Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.

It doesn't though. Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.

so then youre prepared to scientifically demonstrate that there were immortal people at one point? or that immortality is possible?

Why would it be necessary to demonstrate?

It is not necessary to demonstrate something as true for it to be compatible with demonstrable science.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

I challenge you to prove the immortal platypus ancestor so as to not infringe the canon of the "7th ecumenical council" !

Who said that all our ancestors had to be immortal?

It seems that it only really addressed our first human ones.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous

LOL

Evolution does not occur within the lifetime of an individual. It is a consequence of mutations set at conception.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

To take the allegorical meaning of scripture over the literal is exactly what origen who was the reason for that canon of the 7th council was doing. Exactly what evolutionists do as well. Did God create us from earth or from something else? Did he breathe life into an ape or Adam? Was Adam a mortal evolved ape ? Did Eve come from his rib or not? Were plants created before the sun or not? The ACOE interprets first the literal then the figurative, any other method is disrespectful with the scriptures since Christ blessed this mentioned exegetical method of taking the literal meaning first.

Where is my immortal ape ancestor? Show me all the fossils in the world, but I just want something that proves your not violating the canon.

To take the allegorical meaning of scripture over the literal is exactly what origen who was the reason for that canon of the 7th council was doing. Exactly what evolutionists do as well. Did God create us from earth or from something else? Did he breathe life into an ape or Adam? Was Adam a mortal evolved ape ? Did Eve come from his rib or not? Were plants created before the sun or not? The ACOE interprets first the literal then the figurative, any other method is disrespectful with the scriptures since Christ blessed this mentioned exegetical method of taking the literal meaning first.

Where is my immortal ape ancestor? Show me all the fossils in the world, but I just want something that proves your not violating the canon.

You know, it is rather curious that you are citing in this argument a canon from a council your church doesn't support, and which condemns Nestorius, who founded your church, as "impious". Rather inconsistent.

The Church year will soon be 7519, showing exactly when orthodox Christianity teaches the beginning of creation was.

By "the beginning of creation", do you mean when God spoke "Let there be light"?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

If someone does make that argument, I really must insist they explain which superfamily of Catarrhini they would then place humanity in, and support their position.

This is not that complicated. God is the source of all creation. God love Apes, he loved Cro magnon Men, he loves my dog Ziggy (very much btw) and he loves us.

God infuses everything with his presence. He is the beginning, middle and end of all that exists. God creates. It is in his divine nature to create. The Scriptures tell us he deems our creation as good.

In the beginning he created ex nilo ( out of nothing).

It didn't happen in seven days as we Men experience a "Day". That's called Poetry. It tells us God's heart. Don't let it drive you crazy

« Last Edit: December 02, 2010, 11:48:49 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm